Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:19-cv-03923
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Malibu Media v. Doe, Judge Wang granted early discovery allowing Malibu Media to subpoena RCN for John Doe’s name and address tied to an IP address.
Malibu Media, LLC may seek John Doe’s name and address from RCN Corporation, while John Doe and RCN receive notice and an opportunity to challenge the subpoena before disclosure.
What happened
In Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe, Malibu Media alleged that John Doe used BitTorrent to download and distribute its copyrighted films without authorization. Because Malibu Media knew only the Internet Protocol address associated with the alleged activity, it asked to obtain identifying information from Internet Service Provider RCN Corporation before the usual discovery conference.
The court found that Malibu Media had made an initial showing of copyright infringement, that its request for the subscriber’s name and address was specific, and that RCN was necessary to identify the defendant. The court also found that the subscriber had only a limited privacy expectation in the alleged distribution of copyrighted material.
Judge Wang granted Malibu Media’s motion to serve a subpoena on RCN. The subpoena was limited to the subscriber’s name and address, and RCN had to provide notice and preserve the information. The subscriber or RCN could challenge the subpoena, and RCN could not disclose the information while a challenge was pending.
The detailed version
- Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:19-cv-03923
- Lewis Kaplan
- Feb. 4, 2020
Background
Malibu Media, LLC alleged that John Doe, identified in the complaint as the subscriber assigned Internet Protocol address 206.71.225.132, used the BitTorrent file-distribution network to download, copy, and distribute Malibu Media’s copyrighted films without authorization. Malibu Media stated that it had hired an investigator to track Internet Protocol addresses associated with users who made its films available for download. Because Malibu Media knew only the Internet Protocol address, it sought permission to serve a subpoena on RCN Corporation, the Internet Service Provider associated with that address, to obtain the subscriber’s name and address.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) generally prevents a party from seeking discovery before the parties’ required discovery conference unless the court grants permission. The court applied a reasonableness and good-cause standard. For subpoenas seeking identifying information from an Internet Service Provider, the court considered whether Malibu Media had an initial case for copyright infringement, whether the request was specific, whether other ways existed to obtain the information, whether the information was needed, and the subscriber’s privacy expectations.
Analysis
The court found that Malibu Media made an initial showing of copyright infringement. Malibu Media identified copyright-registration information for the works at issue and alleged that John Doe copied and distributed original elements of those works. The court also found the request sufficiently specific because it sought only the name and address of the subscriber associated with 206.71.225.132.
The court accepted Malibu Media’s assertion that it could not identify John Doe without information from RCN. It therefore found the subpoenaed information necessary for continuing the case. The court further concluded that Internet Service Provider subscribers have a limited expectation of privacy in transmitting or distributing copyrighted material. The court stated that procedural safeguards could address concerns about identifying the wrong person and causing undue embarrassment.
Ruling and safeguards
Judge Wang granted Malibu Media’s motion for permission to serve a third-party subpoena. Malibu Media could immediately serve RCN with a subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, but the subpoena could seek only the name and address of the subscriber associated with the specified Internet Protocol address. Malibu Media could not threaten to disclose the identifying information to non-parties and could use the information only for this litigation. Malibu Media also had to include the order and the attached notice to the defendant with the subpoena.
RCN had 30 days after being served to provide the subscriber with the subpoena and the order. The subscriber had 45 days after service to file a motion challenging the subpoena, including a request to proceed anonymously. RCN could not disclose the identifying information before that 45-day period ended. If the subscriber or RCN filed a challenge, RCN could not disclose information until the court resolved the challenge and ordered disclosure. If no challenge was filed during the 45-day period, RCN would have 10 days to produce the information and was required to preserve it while any challenge was pending.
The order granted the motion for leave to serve the subpoena. It did not decide whether John Doe infringed Malibu Media’s copyrights.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.